|
I actually have the same question. I have seen on the web site that it only
recommends 20 real servers behind the LVS. What is this based upon?
Rob.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: lvs-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:lvs-users-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Wayne
>Sent: Thursday, November 01, 2001 2:51 PM
>To: lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: RE: NAT Performance and what is a good bench mark?
>
>
>You bottleneck is not CPU or memory. It is the network cards.
>If you have heavy outgoing connections, the number of ports
>could be masqueraded could be a limiting factor, too.
>
>At 02:33 PM 11/1/2001 -0800, you wrote:
>>I too have been looking to benchmark an LVS-NAT setup using the 2.4 kernel
>>but I'm not sure what a good benchmark is? What do people suggest for the
>>following setup?
>>
>># | |
>># | client |
>># |________|
>># CIP=eth0 192.168.1.13
>># |
>># |
>># VIP=eth0:0 192.168.1.200/32
>># __________
>># | |
>># | director |
>># |__________|
>># DIP=eth2:254 10.10.10.200/24
>># |
>># |
>># |
>># --------------------------------------------
>># | | |
>># | | |
>># RIP1=eth0 RIP2=eth0 RIP=eth0
>># 10.10.10.10 10.10.10.20 10.10.10.30
>># ______________ ______________ ________________
>># | | | | | |
>># | rs1 | | rs2 | | rs3 |
>># |______________| |______________| |________________|
>>
>>Director = 2x 1GHz 1Gig RAM 2 onboard Pro100's and 1 64bit/66MHz
>>Pro1000(talks to real server)
>>
>>Realservers = 3X same config as above but no Pro1000 (could add though)
>>
>>All running the 2.4-9 linux kernel with that level of LVS code.
>The network
>>is fully switched 100/1000.
>>
>>Any suggestions would be helpful. Definitely looking to benchmark web or
>>streaming type content.
>>
>>--Ben Odom
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Peter Mueller [mailto:pmueller@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 1:08 PM
>>To: 'lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
>>Subject: RE: NAT Performance
>>
>>|I'm considering LVS as a replacement to Cisco LocalDirectors to front
>>|several SMTP server farms. Due to customer-end constraints we
>>|need to do
>>|this via NAT. Target throughput is up to 40 Mbps. Is this
>>|realistic? LVS
>>|hardware is likely to be twin 1GHz Pentiums.
>>|
>>
>>40mbps sounds all right on dual-1ghz box, assuming you use later
>2.4 kernel
>>on your director. Be very stingy on your NICs.. for example
>eepro100's seem
>>to historically be 'uncertain' with high bandwidth..
>>
>>I haven't seen a "gauranteed" figure with newer 2.4 kernels. However,
>>lurking on the mailing list for a year or so now has led me to
>believe that
>>the key LVS people now believe NAT (with 2.4 kernel) to perform similar to
>>DR. LVS-DR easily exceeds 40mbs, assuming you have decent hardware.
>>
>>some probably outdated performance evaluations:
>>http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/Joseph.Mack/performance/single_r
ealserver_
>performance.html
>and
>http://www.linuxvirtualserver.org/Documents.html#manuals (look under
>performance)
>
>===
>
>bottom line : if I were you, I would have a basic assumption that it will
>perform and proceed directly to your testing of LVS-NAT and see if it does.
>It would only take 2-3 days and could possibly save you lots of $.
>
>Peter
>
>_______________________________________________
>LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
>
>_______________________________________________
>LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
_______________________________________________
LinuxVirtualServer.org mailing list - lvs-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send requests to lvs-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
or go to http://www.in-addr.de/mailman/listinfo/lvs-users
|
